Montini admits his ignorance by writing “I’m not scientifically equipped to illuminate the governor on this issue.” Nevertheless, he goes on to attempt just that.

Montini’s article is a study in the methods of fact-free reporting. He denigrates his targets by calling them “deniers;” he invokes a (mythical) consensus; and he appeals to the authority of flawed IPCC reports. All of these tactics are invalid forms of argument. The form of argument used by Montini is typical of those with an agenda, but few facts.

Perhaps Mr. Montini (and Governor Ducey) would benefit by reading about some facts in these articles:

This article breaks down the methodology of how the “97 percent” figure was derived and shows that of almost 12,000 papers reviewed, only about 8 percent endorse the contention that human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of global warming.

On Consensus in Science shows a history of consensus in science and how it has often been wrong. Consensus is opinion, not fact. “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ‚ÄìRichard Feynman

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. ‚Äì Michael Crichton

Researchers from the University of Arizona and Stanford University used a contractor to conduct a survey by telephone of 803 Arizona residents about their views on global warming. They then conflated this very small sample into representing the views of all Arizonans.

In five major reports since 1990, the IPCC has published thousands of pages of material, none of which provide any physical or observational evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. All their dire predictions are based on “garbage-in-garbage-out” computer modeling.

The following articles discuss the real, observational scientific evidence: